[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
On 12/07/2013 11:24 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit (reordered):
Still mulling how to handle "]]>".
Perhaps a warning is a reasonable compromise. In the SRFI, perhaps
we could add:
The XML and HTML standards (up through HTML 4.x) do not allow the
"]]> in element content - instead it should be escaped as in "]]>".
This is for historical reasons of SGML-compatibility.
An implementation SHOULD warn if literal "]]>" is seen.
Strengthen this to "MUST warn" and I can live with it, though I would
still prefer to make it an error.
I don't think it is possible to require warnings in a Scheme specification.
Consider a program calling read then eval. There is no place for warnings
to be displayed.